Takeaways from the first Ashes Test

It was thrilling. It was nerve-wrecking. It was controversial. Ultimately, there was euphoria for England and despair for Australia. One country is in jubilation, the other lamenting the cold brutality of Test cricket.

A mere 14 runs separated the two rivals in the First Test of this back-to-back Ashes marathon. Test cricket was the winner. But that is little consolation for Australia, whose supporters may actually self-combust if they hear 'DRS' uttered. There are many question marks still hanging over the teams and some individuals, but it appears safe to say we're in for a rollercoaster ride.

We've learned that Darren Lehmann has rejuvenated Australia, who aren't quite as feeble as their recent record (five straight Test defeats) indicates. Meanwhile, England are a flawed team, whose deficiencies are masked by a few superstar players. Translation - the Ashes is a whole lot closer than first predicted.

We can't wait for the Second Test. But first, here are five takeaways from the first.

Awesome Agar!

I really hope this Test isn't remembered for Stuart Broad not walking. It overshadowed the last few days and left a sour taste for many a cricket fan.

Broad controversy aside, the indelible image of this Test belongs to Australian teenage sensation Ashton Agar, who scored a world record 98 batting at number eleven in the first dig and became a cult hero in the process.

Our batting is truly terrible. The First Test is over. Are we going to lose 5-0? That was a snapshot of the horrible thoughts plaguing Australian supporters when their beloved Baggygreen was teetering at 9-117 in the first innings.

I hadn't totally lost faith. Why? Because Agar was still to bat. Again, why? I watched Agar closely this Shield summer, where he became a catalyst for WA's revival from mediocrity under new coach Justin Langer. Sound familiar?

Agar's plucky batting produced many a miracle for WA. He had undeniable talent, complete with stroke play suggesting his proper batting position was probably at eight. But what impressed me most was his ability to not be overawed by the occasion. His composure was startling for someone barely out of high school.

I was hoping Australia would punt with him in India. In hindsight, perhaps it was a wise selection to not throw Agar to MS Dhoni, Virat Kohli, Shikhar Dhawan et al.

So, at nine down I thought Australia could still erode England's advantage. Of course, I never imagined Agar would be staring at a debut Test ton during a record last wicket partnership with a gutsy Phil Hughes and propelling Australia to a handy lead. Some were underwhelmed by his left-arm tweakers. Sure, his first ball in Test cricket was the 'anti-Gatting' but I thought, after his initial nerves, he bowled with aplomb. It was evident that England's batters believed he was susceptible to the occasion and were gunning for destruction. Agar did not flinch. He bowled subtly without reward in the first innings before becoming menacing in more favourable conditions in the second dig.

Agar's first Test wicket was the prized scalp of the imperious Alastair Cook and he was unlucky to only have claimed two wickets for the Test.

Look, he is going to have his inconsistencies. It's doubtful whether he can perform for the entirety of this gruelling series. I get that. But he has catapulted to the top of Australia's list of spinners. Heck, he could even become the all-rounder Australia has so desperately craved. A batting average of around 30 is not delusional.

Nathan Lyon has been a serviceable player for the past five years but Australia are treading water with him. That's the harsh truth.

Australia has been desperate to find new heroes.

Welcome, Ashton Agar.

Cook's Captaincy

Australia's susceptible batting line-up had no business chasing down 311. Yet, I always thought it was a distinct possibility because a) England's attack bar Anderson is struggling and b) Alastair Cook remains a shaky captain.

Surely, Australia's last wicket scoring more than 200 runs combined in the match is an indictment on Cook. Yes, it was spectacular batting and England's bowlers bar Anderson, notably Steve Finn, deserve wrath for their waywardness.

But the captain has to take responsibility when the ship is wobbly. I believe Cook struggles under pressure, especially when teams are counterattacking. He doesn't seem to have strategies when Plan A falters. He is unable to curb momentum.

Instinctively, he's conservative and measured in his approach - traits that have served him remarkably well with batting. But he must be bold and ruthless with his leadership.

Australia aren't going to roll over. They will be pesky. In my opinion, Australia's one decisive advantage in this series is Clarke's captaincy. He will challenge Cook with his propensity to play attacking cricket.

Can Cook reinvent his captaincy? Can he tinker with his values and beliefs?

England can virtually retain the Ashes with a good performance at Lords. It's time for Cook to seize the initiative.

Australia's upside down batting

Australia always had a distinct possibility to chase down 311 if they started well, I believed. Why? They bat right down the order. There is no seven or eight all-out with Australia. Every member of the lower order has talent with willow but more importantly each is a street fighter, who will not throw away their wicket in archetypal tail-end fashion.

It can't be good that I have more faith in Australia's tail than with their top order, right? In jest, I told friends during the Test that Australia should flip the order upside down for the next match. Unfortunately, I'm not even sure if that's a joke anymore. Australia's wobbles are their continued bane right now.

But it's hard to pinpoint the problem. Every batsman, bar Ed Cowan, looked relatively comfortable at some stage. The Watson/Rogers opening pairing performed admirably (with a dose of luck) during the chase, reinforcing Watson's value at the top.

Phil Hughes played with patience, determination and sensibility in the first innings at his new number five position. That was not a sentence I thought I would ever write. Steve Smith appears an ideal number six - he possesses the traits to salvage a trouble innings, but can also dominate when a platform has been set. He is worth persevering with.

It is time Australia's batsmen start profiting from their starts. Too often they are dismissed in the 30s/40s due to a lack of concentration.

Australia desperately needs big innings/partnerships. If we are to heed cricket history, a team cannot keep relying on their lower order. It won't end well.

England fragile

As abysmal and dysfunctional as Australia have been recently, I disregarded the 'England will win easily' talk. I don't rate England as a strong team. They are good, but flawed. This isn't the 2010-11 Ashes juggernaut, which had a bevy of firing pace bowlers and in-form batsmen.

Look, England should win the series. They have the best pace bowler (Anderson), spinner (Swann) and four of the five most credentialed batsmen (Cook, Pietersen, Trott and Bell v Clarke).

Yet, despite possessing the stars, England escaped jail to win the First Test. Their batting is shaky, particularly if Cook and Trott struggle. England wouldn't want to rely too heavily on an out of conditioned Pietersen and the inconsistent Bell.

The batting struggle wasn't a shock, but England's susceptible bowling was. Fortunately, they are against an inept Australian top order and have Anderson to paint over the cracks. But, what has happened to Finn? He was more wayward than a drunk driver. He looked like a deer in the headlights during the First Test. Should England turn to Onions or Bresnan, who bowled brilliantly during the final two Tests in Australia in '10-11 but has a poor record at Lords?

For all his talent, Broad continually disappoints. He is unable to build sustainable pressure but he does bowl wicket-taking deliveries.

Swann has been one of the best spinners of the past five years but has an infamously poor Ashes record - 11 Tests, 33 wickets, 40 avg. Meaning, there is a pile of pressure on Anderson. He rose to the occasion superbly with a stunning 10-wicket haul in the First Test. He was the match-winner and the difference. But will the gruelling series wear him down? Surely, he needs more support.

England is fortunate they have James Anderson. He is the only bowler I truly believe in for either team.

Sensational Siddle

When Peter Siddle almost single-handedly clawed Australia back into the contest on the first day, I felt my face become flush. I was guilty and embarrassed. How did I get it so wrong?

Yep, I didn't have Siddle in my Australian XI. I preferred Ryan Harris or Jackson Bird to complement Pattinson and Starc.

It wasn't necessary a knock on Siddle, I just believed Harris/Bird were the more penetrating bowlers, particularly in English conditions. Siddle doesn't possess the variety to consistently trouble in-form batsmen on flat decks, I always believed. And during the first session of the match, I felt like a genius. I was ruing Australia's selection to punt with Siddle. He was struggling mightily against Root and Trott.

Just when England appeared to take control, Siddle claimed Trott, Pietersen and Root in quick succession. He finished with 5-50 routing England for a paltry 215. And that's why Siddle was selected. He never yields. He is the heart and soul of this young and inexperienced attack. He can bowl all day, as evidenced by his virtuoso fifth day performance against South Africa in Adelaide last year.

Cricket is not always black and white, despite statistics. Some players have the innate ability to inspire and make their teammates walk taller. Their value can't be measured.